Is it fair to say that Cindy Sheehan wants to destroy the Democratic Party?

Or is that a stretch?

I take my theme from her announcement.

It is also with a heavy heart that I announce my candidacy against Nancy Pelosi in California's 8th. If anybody would dare think I am not serious, I would hope they would look back at the last 3 years of my life and everything I have sacrificed to restore our nation to one that obeys the rule of law and can be looked up to with respect once again in the international community and not as the hated laughingstock on the block.

I am committed to challenging a two-party system that has kept us in a state of constant warfare for the last 60 years and has become more and more beholden to special interests and has forgotten the faces of the people whom it represents."

I ask because I have been considering in my mind why she wouldn't go after Pelosi in the primary (in which case 90% of my objection to her run would disappear).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

The Right has the only major party, and it has two wings - the insane Republicans, and the quiet and competent Democrats.

Face it - two of the three Dem frontrunners for the Presidency voted to let Bush start an infinite war in Iraq, and were supporters of permanent 'free' trade with China. This utterly blows my mind. Not only are they allowed to keep calling themselves "Democrats" - they are frontrunners for the Presidency!

And almost nobody in Congress is doing there job - we've seen the most outright attack on the Constitution by an imperialist 'president' - and all that Congress can do is cravenly triangulate as fast as they can, ducking the only and obvious solutions of censure and impeachment.

I think that Sheehan simply wants to force a restoration what Dr. Dean used to call "The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party".

But I certainly agree with your assessment of Cindy Sheehan's goals.

Edited to add - meant this to be a response to Manny Goldstein

Bryant

"I am committed to challenging a two-party system"

I'm not keen on the DLC myself.

Bryant

I think she's offering opposition to the corruption within the party. Whether or not she does that from the inside or the outside is irrelevant to me.

I see the Democratic Party as stronger, healthier, and more viable when everybody has a place and voice at the table, and when it's ok to openly recognize and address corruption.

our right flank. Now, apparently, we're going to have to watch our left, too, to make sure that crazies aren't fucking everything up.

A four- or five-party system would make more sense, after the fascist problem has been dealt with.

It would be more fair to say that Sheehan is batshit crazy at the moment, and what she wants should be viewed with that in mind.

And I voted. :)

Making anymore out of it is simply is politics. Is Bloomberg out to destroy the democratic party? Republicans? Unaffiliated voters? You may say yes, but then is the democratic party out to destroy Sheehan? Bloomberg? Greens? What makes her nastier than the others? Nothing really. We should take care of our own business and produce results and ideas the public will be happy with.

A long overdue necessity if we are ever to be even somewhat "democratic".

How does a party to the left of the Democrats help the Democrats?

Or has the center moved right on a sliding scale?

Obviously Republicans describe mainstream Democrats as Crazed Liberal extremists, but many here see them as barely any more conservative than Karl Rove.

Bryant

than when I was younger. In most other countries, our party would and is considered conservative.

(and so am I, as it turns out), but I don't know if you can set up an objective measure of how liberal/conservative a party is.

Bryant

On a world level, there's no doubt that all American politics is pretty right wing, though. I will grant you that.

Bryant

The idea is to add more choices for the citizenry than the two parties that are really both centrist parties that always play to the middle to gain power.

That's just math...

That's also math.

But by "punishing" the Democrats you are helping the Republicans...

Again, I don't see her as "punishing" the Democrats as much as I see her challenging the dominance of the two party system that allows those that gather the most money to run the country without significant challenge.

On one hand, in order to get things done, you need the help of a political party in power. Unfortunately, we need help getting rid of the two party system in favor of a multi-party system, but that requires that we get the help of one of the two entrenched parties. In essence, if we want this change, we're asking one of the two parties that is dominant in the particular timeframe to essentially vote for suicide. The people would have to give the dominant party no choice but to vote for constitutional reforms that break the two-party monopoly.

Power is not given away. It is taken away.

But, that's how the Republican Party came into existence. The Democrats and Whigs slugged it out for the "middle" and the Republicans offered real change.

What is more likely, IMO, than a new "left-wing" party arising, is some sort of super "moderate" party that will drain votes from both the Democrats and Republicans, which will force them to move left and right to retain their hold on their "bases".

Which, as a Left Democrat, I would welcome.

will likely hurt the Democratic Party. While you might see good coming of that (and I have to admit I see some possible (although not probable) good coming from that too), you can't get away from that fact.

Bryant

As I see it, the country has turned against the Republicans and the Democrats, despite their seeming endless capacity for shooting themselves in the foot, should be able to win against any Republican no matter who is nominated or the loss of votes of possible 3rd party leftist voters.

If there's a race between a left of center party and a right of center party and another left of center party enters the races who benefits?

Did Nader's candidacy benefit Bush* or Gore...


You and me are empowered to support whomever we want... We are just not empowered to change the laws of political math...

I didn't vote for Nader, I held my nose and voted for the "moderate" Democrat. But, the votes that Gore lost to Nader were available to him. He lost them by doing the "practical politics" thing. Not to say that if he had moved left he would have won but blaming the left for Gore's loss is naive...in the face of political math.

In life, the choices are rarely binary, yet the political system in this country often only presents a binary choice on election day in a nation of varied political views and beliefs. (And people wonder why the US consistently polls the lowest voter participation rates in the industrialized world) Have people stopped and wondered that perhaps the lack of choice at the ballot box one of several big problems that is contributing to the problem of low participation rates?

That is, if she "wants to destroy the Democratic Party" -- whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean -- then she cannot be discussed or supported on this website, per the announcement yesterday.

How'm I doin' so far?

Cindy Sheehan "Appeasers" or "Bush Enablers" or "Traitors" is supposed to silence them.

Bryant

Like Nader she needs naive people as props.

After supposedly leaving the field slamming the door, taking her ball home, she realizes that she needs the adoration, the martyrdom.

That she needs this and knows how to manipulate good intentioned people is one thing; that so many good intentioned people still fall in the traps set by her and by Nader is sad.

Of course she will fail miserably but I doubt that it will stop her from trying again. Many people, including DUers, have contributed about $200 million for the candidates - but nothing to the homeless and the poor - and many will give her money, too.

The only silver lining is that if, indeed, she touts a third party that perhaps, finally, we will see the last of Saint Cindy on DU.

...we wouldn't be having these conversations. Draw up fucking articles of impeachment, already.

She also called him 'courageous' and stated he was not a 'liar'.

This is not the time for social niceities. This is time for anger and action.

I don't see much of that from our leadership.

change as fast as she (and most of us,too) feels it should.
She will never be "over" the loss of her son, and she's still just trying to make his death count for something..anything..

I don't follow articles about her much, so I'm not sure what her new motives are..

Lots of people get into politics after a personal tragedy..Carolyn McCarthy did...but Cindy cannot win against Barbara Boxer..

it's probably the dumbest damn thing to ever come out of america.

As to the primary question, she's just shortening the Lieberman-process.

I want to "destroy" the Democrats.

I don't think she wants to destroy it at all. Her decision to run, imo, is more like a kick in the ass to Pelosi and the DEMS to do their job just a little bit better.

I think we all know, I think even Cindy knows, that she has no shot in hell in winning but it could, just maybe, make Pelosi reevaluate her stance on some positions.

She just doesn't think much of us, is all. Which is fine. Apparently the feeling is mutual amongst some here. She's allowed her opinion, and DUers who have lost patience with her have a right to theirs, whether or not they've lost a child in the war. That shouldn't be a pre-requisite as some seem to think it should.

The fact of the matter is that the two party system is corrupt, and was designed to maintain the duopoly that exists today. Only during times of great crisis is this system temporarily broken, such as before the Civil War. The fact is that, for many people, politicians suck, both the Left and the Right are having a crisis of confidence in the parties that they both respectively support, mostly because both parties have the same problem, Corporate Corruption. The lobbyists of the rich corporations seem to have a stranglehold over both parties, and they both send a few crumbs to their partisan bases while undercutting many issues those bases also hold dear.

On the left we see an economic divide with the center of the party, who are ultimately trying to steer it to a "pro-market" policy. The Republicans, on the other hand, are doing the exact same thing, while at the same time taking their Religious Right base for granted, and doing nothing for their social issues because of fear of losing moderates. We may see a large contingent in both parties bolt from them to form their own parties or join other existing parties. A four party system, at least the way we have our political system structured, isn't sustainable, what's left of the Democratic or Republican parties may simply join together to try to retain a majority in the House, at the very least, while there would be two parties that are slightly smaller, but far more ideological, or at least consistent, in their political beliefs. This particular system may or may not be sustainable in the long term, but for a decade or so it may end up that way.

Then again, there may be other splits, such as regional or state parties, removed from the structures of the national parties, taking precedence. Who knows, the only thing I do know is that Cindy Sheehan wouldn't be a harbinger of this, rather just one of the symptoms. The fact of the matter is that most people in this country don't give two shits about the Democratic party as a whole or the Republican party as a whole, hell, most don't even participate in the political process at all! And we claim this is a democracy, that's a joke! At the same time, both Parties try to court the "Independents" who are mostly folks who vote based on candidates or issues, moreso than party affiliation. The fact of the matter is that most people vote for Democrats or Republicans because of lack of choice in the matter, it was taken away from them through legalistic and structural malfeasance on the part of both parties, almost a century ago.

Its hard to get excited about politics when the same basic shit(nothing) happens regardless of who you vote for.